This is an old post on Iraq from Glenn Reynolds, but one worth reading.

Just last night I was discussing this with Kevin. His basic premise: war is not the answer, nor will it ever be. It's an idealistic position. He correctly points out that the prisoner abuse scandel is an inevitable product of war, in short, it is something you accept upon declaring war. I agree with this. The difference between the US and Saddam and other dictators isn't that we, as human beings, are morally better - we aren't. As we can see by the prisoner abuse scandel, Americans have the same horrible tendencies as all men - and women, you'll note. The difference is that our system condemns and punishes those responsible, rather than encouraging and rewarding torturers.

The point isn't about moral superiority. The point of the war is to have a more-US friendly Middle East. We will not live under fear of terrorism. And that is worth fighting against. The way to alleviate terrorism, is to A) Fight terrorists and B) Fight the causes of terrorism - and the autocrats of the region, Saddam, Arafat, Assad, the Royal's, in addition to the mullah's, are the primary causes. Not all of the fighting will involve guns. An important fight is for the minds of the Arab world. We are trying to counteract Al Jeezera, with a less inciteful Arab news source. We need our enemies in the region (and there are a lot of them) to fear us. And we need our allies in the region (they're a lot of them, too) to be able to rely on us to fight with them.

I've always been about 60-40 in favor of the war, because as the last month has proven, there are many drawbacks - high cost in money and lives and support from the rest of the world. But I think it is folly to think the war is for money, or because we're a war-mongering nation, or more importantly, that "peace" is some type of morally superior position. After the Holocaust, everyone always said "Never again would we stand by and let such atrocities happen." But we know such atrocities have happened and continue to happen in many places around the world - Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia, North Korea, Iraq. How is doing nothing while people live under a Stalinist a morally superior position than fighting against it?

But let me be clear - I don't think we went to Iraq to liberate Iraqi's. We went to Iraq as a bold move to reshape the middle east and it's attitude toward the West. As a result, I think Iraqi's will be better off in the long run and I think when they are better off, they will be more amiable towards us and we will be safer. But it is not a moral question - it is a strategic one.